Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Blethen, Brainerd, and the Rise of the Seattle Times


 * The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review).  No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was   delete. Spartaz Humbug! 17:29, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

Blethen, Brainerd, and the Rise of the Seattle Times

 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

Interesting but unencyclopedic essay. McWomble (talk) 07:28, 29 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete Wikipedia is not a repository for personal essays and/or homework. Doc StrangeMailbox Logbook 14:02, 29 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete and maybe use some of the information on the Seattle Times article. Mangoe (talk) 14:19, 29 November 2008 (UTC)
 * If we use any information in the Seattle Times article, we cannot delete, we need the history of the original article to properly retain attribution. - Mgm|(talk) 14:30, 29 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Merge part with The Seattle Times and redirect. - Mgm|(talk) 14:30, 29 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Rename, split and merge - While somewhat synthesis, it is well sourced and would be a pity to throw it away as it has material about two persons and two newspapers, the other being The Seattle Post-Intelligencer. Actually the first part and one of the secondary sources is about Alden J. Blethe who does not yet have an article, but would merit one, so we could move it there with its history and then eidt and merge other parts elsewhere.--Tikiwont (talk) 15:29, 29 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete. If the author is following this discussion, they can take some of the info and stick it in the appropriate place (Seattle Times, Post). But the essay as we have it is an essay, OR, and even a cursory look at the "Secondary Sources" reveals that this was a high school assignment. BTW, Hi878, an annotated bibliography should NEVER include statements on how some article was helpful to you. The reader isn't interested in your thought processes, only in results. Sorry, that's the English teacher coming out. Drmies (talk) 21:30, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

Oh well. I never thought that this would stay. I thought I'd just try. Hi878 (talk) 23:40, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

And by the way, the English teacher in you is wrong. Hi878 (talk) 04:49, 30 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of News-related deletion discussions.   -- • Gene93k (talk) 09:00, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Washington-related deletion discussions.   -- • Gene93k (talk) 09:00, 1 December 2008 (UTC)


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.